Ureteroenteric anastomotic revision as initial management of stricture after urinary diversion

• Published in: International journal of urology Vol. 24; no. 5; pp. 390 - 395
• Main Authors: Gin, Greg E, Ruel, Nora H, Parihar, Jaspreet S, Warner, Jonathan N, Yuh, Bertram E, Yamzon, Jonathan, Wilson, Timothy G, Lau, Clayton S, Chan, Kevin G
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.05.2017
• Subjects: anastomosis; Arrhythmia; complications; Data processing; Implants; Morbidity; outcomes; Plastic surgery; Renal function; Stricture; Success; urinary diversion; Wound infection; complications; stricture; outcomes; anastomosis; urinary diversion
• ISSN: 0919-8172; 1442-2042
• DOI: 10.1111/iju.13323

Objective To report our experience with ureteroenteric anastomotic revision as initial treatment of stricture after urinary diversion. Methods An institutional review board‐approved retrospective study was carried out. A total of 41 patients who underwent primary ureteroenteric anastamotic revision were identified between 2007 and 2015. Data analyzed included patient characteristics, type of diversion, estimated blood loss, operative time, change in renal function, length of stay, postoperative complications and time with nephrostomy/stent. Success of revision was defined as an improvement in hydronephrosis on radiographic imaging and/or reflux during pouchogram. Predictors of length of stay and complications were analyzed using analysis of covariance. Results A total of 50 renal units were revised with a success rate of 100%. The median length of stay was 6 days (2–16 days). There were a total of 15 complications (one major, 14 minor) in 14 patients (33% 30‐day complication rate). The most common were wound infection (n = 4) and arrhythmia (n = 4). Robotic revision (n = 5) had a median length of stay of 3 days (2–4) with no complications. Conclusions Primary ureteroenteric anastomotic revisions have an excellent success rate at an experienced center and might obviate the need for multiple interventions. Open revision is associated with mostly minor complications. Robotic revision might reduce the morbidity of open revision in select cases.